Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

If by higher morality you mean don't be disrespectful of other people, take their feelings into account, don't be a jackass regarding racial stereotypes and such then yeah in this instance the teacher does have moral high ground over the "Washington Football Team" and others.

Playing king of the moral hill is not in itself a moral act.

"Politically correct" was originally a Leftist term making fun of the parts of the tribe that took themselves too seriously.

That said, a stadium full of (mostly) white (mostly) southerners doing the tomahawk chop and associated chant strikes me as much more offensive on several levels. So, in that light, why bother worrying about Chief Noc-a-Homa?

Am I the only one who thinks this is a pretty ironic statement? If there's one group of people that the South hasn't hated more than the North its the Irish. If there's two its the Native Americans. Saying something is more offensive because you believe that all southerner's are racist is pretty prejudiced itself, and I hate to tell you this, but if you're really that racist then you probably don't enjoy living in Atlanta all that much, since you'd be in the vast minority.

edit: to clarify Atlanta is about 38% white, 54% black. Given the much more sordid relationship between white southerners and people of African decent I think its safe to say that no Atlanta racists have the time to actively hate native americans.

Saying something is more offensive because you believe that all southerner's are racist is pretty prejudiced itself

But, don't you know, we can still stereotype Southerners with impunity. Because they deserve it or something. Just like Christians. The tolerance police don't care about protecting everyone's feelings or human dignity - just the groups they choose to assign favored status.

If there's one group of people that the South hasn't hated more than the North its the Irish. If there's two its the Native Americans.

Good lord, the redneck/hill-billy descendents of Scot-Irish indentured servants almost revere the mythos of the noble Native American. It's like some of these people have never been to a crafts fair in the foothills where woodworkers from the back country sell their carpentry wares alongside booths of dream catchers and terribly constructed "crying Indian" oils.

"Politically correct" was originally a Leftist term making fun of the parts of the tribe that took themselves too seriously.

Not only that, but the first notable anti-PC parody was written by a lifelong Communist, who also once sent her 8-year old niece a model guillotine for Christmas, complete with a toy victim whose head spurted out fake blood when the blade struck. She explained her rationale in a letter to her sister:

People are always asking me to join committees against the wicked toys they've got here (like model H-bombs, etc) but I can't bear to join because I know I should have rather longed for a model H-bomb if they had been about when we were little. Anyway, the wickedest toy of all, and the one that has been written up and condemned bitterly all over the U.S., is a real guillotine (real model of, anyway) and a toy person with toy head that comes off when the knife drops, and a colouring set with red for blood etc. So be expecting it, but don't tell Sophy for fear that the campaign has been successful and they've stopped selling them...

People are always asking me to join committees against the wicked toys they've got here (like model H-bombs, etc) but I can't bear to join because I know I should have rather longed for a model H-bomb if they had been about when we were little. Anyway, the wickedest toy of all, and the one that has been written up and condemned bitterly all over the U.S., is a real guillotine (real model of, anyway) and a toy person with toy head that comes off when the knife drops, and a colouring set with red for blood etc. So be expecting it, but don't tell Sophy for fear that the campaign has been successful and they've stopped selling them...

I guess I get what the "this is a horrible racist name" people are saying, but I have yet to meet an American Indian who actually cares.

Well, of course not. Only overprivledged white people care about this kind of stuff. They feel the need to be offended on behalf of 'these people', sometimes 'those people' don't even know they should be offended. And even if they did, they certainly not strong enough to form their own objections without whitey leading the charge.

Let's try this: Let's let the group that should actually be offended let us know if they have a problem. History has shown that they are certainly capable. If they march on Braves HQ, maybe change something. If a bunch of white bloggers with no life want to be the PC police, we tell them to go pound sand.

I've known indigenous people who care, but Robert hasn't met them so... #### 'em. They can pound sand too, I'm sure.

I think these things just be judged on a case by case basis and am agnostic wrt a lot of Braves stuff specifically (caveat - I'm an Atlanta fan), but reject the premise that I'm not allowed to have a non-supportive opinion on this because I'm white.

Let's try this: Let's let the group that should actually be offended let us know if they have a problem. History has shown that they are certainly capable. If they march on Braves HQ, maybe change something. If a bunch of white bloggers with no life want to be the PC police, we tell them to go pound sand.

Actually, disadvantaged/minority groups need advocates from the majority, otherwise, everyone calls them "whiny" and imply that they only have a problem because it's them instead of another group. Without male allies, women don't get the right to vote; without white allies, the Civil Rights Movement doesn't win legislative victories.

As to the issue, when it comes to politeness, it's just better to err on the side of caution. There's no loss from thinking about the ways that language affects others. And the words that we all agree are unacceptable did not start that way. Black people were consistently called "boy" and "n!gger" by a lot of white people (still are, though rarely to their faces), and the way we made it verboten was to have lots of people--of many ethnic backgrounds--say, "That's not ok. Don't do that." It's not the language itself that's a problem. It's often just a symptom that the person using it doesn't have any fundamental respect for the group they're addressing or presenting. American Indians already lost. They have little to no political influence; much of their varied and widespread culture is all but dead; many members of their nations and tribes are significantly less than full-lineage, many of whom get more assimilated into majority with every passing year. The least we can do is not rub that in their faces by pretending that we're honoring them with a caricature that barely encompasses what few once were.

Let's try this: Let's let the group that should actually be offended let us know if they have a problem. History has shown that they are certainly capable. If they march on Braves HQ, maybe change something. If a bunch of white bloggers with no life want to be the PC police, we tell them to go pound sand.

I'll repeat the questions I asked in #83. If I give my nieces a serious side-eye and earful for saying something like "chink" or "rag-head", I'm... what, exactly? An awful human being, by your accounting, for not being asian or middle-eastern but speaking up to them on it?

So did the Irish. The Braves' logo most obvious analog is the angry leprachaun from Notre Dame.

Except for the fact that:

Lots of Irish Catholics have attended the University (even from early days), and the name apparently comes from the Chaplain to the Irish brigade during the Civil War (just one of many legends). And the leprechaun wasn't made official mascot until 1965, at which point several generations of Irish-Americans had significant input in the University and how it interacted with the demographic. Previously, the team was represented by Irish Terriers. The name "Fighting Irish" wouldn't even be used on a regular basis until over a decade into the 20th Century.

Somehow, I don't see American Indians having the same level of input.

ETA: whatever the Irish lost pales (pun unintended) in comparison to the American Indians. They gave up their ethnic identity in exchange for being accepted as white majority. American Indians didn't even have the option. The early Irish-Americans made sacrifices. The American Indians were sacrifices.

Even if the Fighting Irish were completly analogous it doesn't make it right.

I agree, but I look at the history of the term and admit that it seems largely self-selected. There were a lot of Irish students who promoted it, cheered it on and accepted it. The college had at least two Irish presidents before the term was ever used. While it's not analogous, the main reason is that American Indians (and many non-passing minorities) didn't really have a choice in how they were portrayed. They had the option of sucking it up or complaining and being told they were being petty. In the end, I think complaining about "Fighting Irish" unless you are from Ireland is like complaining about black people (of a particular class and background) calling each other n!gger. It's wrong, but where's the authority to tell them as much?

If all the teams named for Indians left the sportsmap, including the so-called 'non-offensive' ones which are all crass commercial exploitation of one stripe or another, the actual Indians left in the reservation ghettos will face continued rape, death and destruction 'til there are none left.

Even if the Fighting Irish were completly analogous it doesn't make it right.

I agree, but I look at the history of the term and admit that it seems largely self-selected. There were a lot of Irish students who promoted it, cheered it on and accepted it. The college had at least two Irish presidents before the term was ever used.

Just for the historical record, at the time that "Fighting Irish" replaced "Ramblers" as the most commonly used Notre Dame nickname, Irish Americans made up but a minority of the football team's roster. In the 19th century, the team was simply known as "The Catholics".

EDIT: To add to that, there was a period of flux where both "Ramblers" and "Fighting Irish" (or just "Irish") were interchangeable, but if you go by the newspaper accounts, "Ramblers" was still used with great frequency all the way into the 30's, in spite of the official adaptation of "Fighting Irish" by the school itself in 1927.